No range units challenge

[The Pilgrim]

I assure you just because you can see the archers in my cities doesnt mean I am using them. They are merely their to add astetic value. Besides, I popped one from a hut, and got one from a barb camp.

No problem. I'm just clarifying the challenge and the idea standing behind it.

Indeed, and small variance in power doesn't bother me much. The way some folk demand absolute 100% balance between options in some games is... beyond realistic, IMO. I can enjoy a game if there is one strategy/tactic that outshines others.

My only point in the other thread was quite often you hear people talk about how useful the archer line is, and especially when CB's hit. But looking at the big picture, it seems that much of the problem is melee units (which number quite a few between all the different eras, mounted, etc) are essentially there to just take up space. They don't really contribute anything unless you have a huge tech advantage.

The difference in usefulness is huge, no doubt. But let me fail one more time before I finally agree with you that melee/mounted units completely and undeniably suck and there is no remedy other than buffing them. Btw, how exactly are you suggesting to buff them?

Instead of talking about ideas of nerfing CB's (or archer line in general), imagine if melee forces were an actual threat to deal with. Fielding an army only of CB/Xbow would be suicide if you couldn't protect them from enemy melee forces. Taking the detour to the bottom of the tech tree could be worth it if you needed the extra military might.

By increasing combat strength and bonuses vs. ranged I suppose?

 

[budweiser]

Lets remember its rock>paper>scissors. A horse is your counter to the archer.

Does melee need a buff? Take a look at my screen shot and you see Tyre has strength 18 with no walls. My Landsknecht are strength 16 plus a general, plus discipline, plus Just War. So if I go in with a bunch I would expect to win the town in 2 turns. My siege tips the scale. What worries me is straight melee against a wall and castle, not to even mention on a hill. I have to hurry up and get to the next level, muskets before the AI improves his defense technologies.

 

[Matthew.]

Btw, how exactly are you suggesting to buff them?

Basic combat strength boost would be easiest, IMO.

Spoiler :

They already have slightly higher combat than ranged, but this doesn't factor that melee take damage while receiving it and cannot attack from range. Most games have heavily reduced range damage, because range itself is powerful.

Perfect example is probably dryads from Warcraft 3 TFT. They did very little damage in relation to their cost, died extremely quick when focused fired, and yet were still used because their constant slow poison attack from range was worth all the downsides.

Lets remember its rock>paper>scissors. A horse is your counter to the archer.

Supposedly, but I don't think the rock/paper/scissor system is that prevalent in Civ. Archers do have lower defense combat and mounted can close the gap, but it doesn't work out as well as other games. Mounted units could get a promotion for bonus damage against ranged, but I'm not sure where that would leave basic infantry.


I don't think further reducing ranged defense strength is a desirable option, because getting one-hit killed from every city or random unit that breathes on you wouldn't be fun either.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Lets remember its rock>paper>scissors. A horse is your counter to the archer.

In MP - maybe. In SP that just doesn't work. Sure you can counter archers, AI can't.

What worries me is straight melee against a wall and castle, not to even mention on a hill. I have to hurry up and get to the next level, muskets before the AI improves his defense technologies.

And that's how capitals look like usually. I had both neighbors settling solely on hills and walls weren't up until we started fighting. Then all of a sudden whooooops... surprise!

Basic combat strength boost would be easiest, IMO.

Spoiler :

They already have slightly higher combat than ranged, but this doesn't factor that melee take damage while receiving it and cannot attack from range. Most games have heavily reduced range damage, because range itself is powerful.

Perfect example is probably dryads from Warcraft 3 TFT. They did very little damage in relation to their cost, died extremely quick when focused fired, and yet were still used because their constant slow poison attack from range was worth all the downsides.

Never played Warcraft, but I believe you. I have no problem with stronger melee units. But will that change anything? CB's will still thrash the cities while melee will be used as enhanced meatshields.

I don't think further reducing ranged defense strength is a desirable option, because getting one-hit killed from every city or random unit that breathes on you wouldn't be fun either.

Oh no, I don't suggest reducing combat strength, only range strength against cities. To make siege units relevant.

 

[kirbdog]

Melee units are already have much more combat power than equivalent-era archer units and siege units. They don't have range, and infantry are slow, but that is not negotiable. If I were tweaking it, I would be reducing the amount of damage a melee unit takes on the attack. Being able to attack without taking damage is what really makes "Bombard" so powerful. As it is, even winning in melee by overwhelming odds will shave off about 10 health. If victories took less health off the melee unit, they'd have a better chance of surviving retaliation after attack. At higher difficulties you can't really afford to throw away units often.

 

[budweiser]

I am at turn 180 and am relying very heavily on the seige units now. I took out Istanbul but lost a lot of Landsers and some trebs. I ran straight into a janissary and he started eating my men. Then I got a triple Dow from Harlod, China and Austria. I almost lost Berlin. But I fought my way back and took the 2 river towns north of Berlin, so I am approaching Copenhagen but he has the Great Wall. I am about 20 turns from artillery. No way straight melee would win this. I've lost a lot of units.

 

[krc]

Wouldn't France be one of the best civs for this challenge? Assuming you survive the early DoWs without anything in the archer line, you get two opportunities to attack with UUs: first with musketeers, and again with the foreign legion.

 

[The Pilgrim]

No way straight melee would win this. I've lost a lot of units.

This challenge sucks. Seriously. Not fun for me by any means.
I gave it a second try with Ethiopia. Great start again. Took out Austria with heavy loses, when Hiawatha DoWed. I decided to counter push. Same story. Trebs got thrashed, LS and pikes are overwhelmed by his numbers and we're at stalemate.

Wouldn't France be one of the best civs for this challenge? Assuming you survive the early DoWs without anything in the archer line, you get two opportunities to attack with UUs: first with musketeers, and again with the foreign legion.

Decent choice, I think, but what do you do before Gunpowder? Turtle?

 

[Light Cleric]

If I actually tried the masochist version of this(no ranged units period) I would probably have to go with a Warrior/Horse line UU, like the Ottomans/Aztecs/Sweden/Sonhgai. If you go with Germany and spam LSes you end up with an army of Lancers or Anti-Tank Guns. Mandecavs interest me because of the lack of city attack penalty.

 

[The Pilgrim]

If I actually tried the masochist version of this(no ranged units period) I would probably have to go with a Warrior/Horse line UU, like the Ottomans/Aztecs/Sweden/Sonhgai. If you go with Germany and spam LSes you end up with an army of Lancers or Anti-Tank Guns. Mandecavs interest me because of the lack of city attack penalty.

I forgot about Manducavs. Not sure they're good though. All knight UU's lack the penalty, afaik, and conquistadors aren't that useful from my experience.
And Tabarnak promised sub 150 LS Apocalypse. We're waiting.

I'm done with this nonsense though. So you kids are by your own now.

 

[budweiser]

Play this enough times and you will have a good method worked out.

I think Japan's ability to attack at full strength even if damaged would help a lot. There are other methods, but getting a good jump early seems crucial. Later you can cherry pick the weaker cities and swarm the capitals.

I guess I wont finish my game because I need artillery here and I know I can beat the immortal that way.

I am disappointed that so many of my troops got killed in rough terrain.

I believe that the AI knows to look at your troop concentrations and build units accordingly. It sure seemed like Harold came at me with a lot of shooters and I think its because at that point I didn't have any horse in my army. Once I got a few horse, his shooters vaporized.

The greatest trick though, I think, is staying one jump ahead in war technologies and maximizing the attack window. Some wicked Rationalism to spring inot rifle>Great War infantry should seal the deal.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Play this enough times and you will have a good method worked out.

The masochists are next door, not here!

But I do agree, it's not impossible. Actually, I'm still sure that melee + siege is more than possible and carpet of LS is known to be viable as well. But that's just painful and very much not fun. For me personally. I'm also sure some players will find the fun in that.

 

[budweiser]

But I do agree, it's not impossible. Actually, I'm still sure that melee + siege is more than possible and carpet of LS is known to be viable as well.

Me too. I mean, my game is won. I am number 1 in score and I am in process of killing #2. Great Wall, Himeji and all.

 

[Browd]

I forgot about Manducavs. Not sure they're good though. All knight UU's lack the penalty, afaik, and conquistadors aren't that useful from my experience.

Naresuan's Elephant (Siam) still has the city attack penalty.

 

[Matthew.]

I've completed a number of games with just melee/siege, but it has less to do with melee/siege being awesome ('cause it ain't), and more to do with the AI forgetting how to play come Renaissance/Industrial. If you manage to make it to Renaissance/Industrial while at least equal in techs, you can steamroll right over them with [nearly] any unit composition.

Primary reason for doing so, for me, is heavily upgraded artillery guns--which I find a ton of fun compared to archer/Gatling line. Something about raining death and destruction on the enemy without them able to stop it is amusing to me. And rocket artillery is just

 

[chmilz]

Many people can clean pangaea in 150 turns (and less) on immortal, yet they don't score 100% on deity. It's a fact.

I like domination wins, but I tend to drag them out to 300 turns. Maybe I like building too much, I dunno. Can you gimme a brief walkthrough/strategy that gives me the know-how and possibly the courage to pull the trigger earlier, and more often?

 

[Matthew.]

Start conquering right when you get CB's. Only take good/needed cities; raze/trade the rest. Target enemy capitals (all that is needed for victory condition).

 

[The Pilgrim]

Naresuan's Elephant (Siam) still has the city attack penalty.

Really? Don't ask me why, but I thought it was removed. I need to play more and get my facts right.

I've completed a number of games with just melee/siege, but it has less to do with melee/siege being awesome ('cause it ain't), and more to do with the AI forgetting how to play come Renaissance/Industrial. If you manage to make it to Renaissance/Industrial while at least equal in techs, you can steamroll right over them with [nearly] any unit composition.

Primary reason for doing so, for me, is heavily upgraded artillery guns--which I find a ton of fun compared to archer/Gatling line. Something about raining death and destruction on the enemy without them able to stop it is amusing to me. And rocket artillery is just

Just melee/siege meaning ranged are banned or mainly melee/siege? Because 2 CB's was all I needed. They would've prevent my double rage quit.
Yeah, the moment you hit artillery, it doesn't matter what else you have as well.

I like domination wins, but I tend to drag them out to 300 turns. Maybe I like building too much, I dunno. Can you gimme a brief walkthrough/strategy that gives me the know-how and possibly the courage to pull the trigger earlier, and more often?

Very rough recipe:
Settle on hill, preferably on top of Mining lux or at least next to Mining luxes (others are okay too, but Mining ones are the strongest). Improve all luxuries and sell them asap even if it means a little unhappiness. Buy workers and archers. Take Liberty. Settle your second city in neighbor's face in defensible location with good production. Bring an archer or two for protection. Settle your third city right in other neighbor's face in defensible location with good production. Bring an archer or two for protection. Start mass building/buying archers everywhere distributing them between two fronts and beeline Construction. On emperor and below you can start conquering once you have 6-7 archers and 2 melee on each front and upgrade to CB's after one victim. On immortal waiting for Construction is usually safer, although if the closest AI has soft cities, sometimes you can get away with it on immortal too. Upgrade as soon as you can and attack. Beeline Machinery. Upgrade. Annex capitals and high production cities, rush buy courthouses and additional composite bowmen/crossbowmen as you progress, raze the junk (you can sell it to remaining AI if you want, but cheese haters don't have too). Later bring horses instead of melee to take cities and protect your ranged awesome guys.
You may or may not build NC while waiting for Machinery (doesn't matter too much. By this time your army is far away from home and more units in original cities are redundant, they won't keep up with the rest). Although on emperor or below you probably won't need it at all. Mercantile CS and CS in general will take care of any unhappiness issue you have. You can settle more than 3 native cities if you want, personally I don't see the need, unless the terrain forces me to place them in strategic spots. Early granaries and Maritime CS are also very useful for higher beakers and production. Since you have huge army early, you can fulfill lots of quests and ally a bunch of CS from a get go. I prefer Liberty, however, with tons of luxes and buyers, Honor works too. Towards the end you may want to buy a third army to finish off AI or two who were lucky to spawn off main armies' path. But usually there is no need. Your game is over when you have dozen of CB's heading in two directions anyways. The rest is optimization.

 

[Matthew.]

Just melee/siege meaning ranged are banned or mainly melee/siege? Because 2 CB's was all I needed. They would've prevent my double rage quit.

I will usually have archers at start for defense, but I try and work in siege units as soon as I can (usually trebs after Uni's--cats are expensive and weak). Once you get cannon, which isn't that far away from trebs, it is enough to get to artillery guns. AI rushes to pikes/CB's but forgets to upgrade from there, so musket/cannon combo can steamroll anything in the way.

I've mentioned it here before, but I'm one of those domination players that like to systematically clear the entire map. Siege, imo, works better for that than heavy focus on archers. Although going for Medieval dom victs, CB to Xbow rush would indeed be better.

 

[krc]

[France is a]
Decent choice, I think, but what do you do before Gunpowder? Turtle?

Yes; turtle by building enough melee to discourage your closest neighbors from attacking too soon.

I'm now in the middle of trying this for the first time. Spawned on a continent with Alex and Isabella. Managed to keep Alex from settling in one of the spots I wanted by putting up a screen of units (scout, warrior, spearman) that his settler couldn't walk through. Isabella decided to go wonder-building in Madrid, so Alex decided to DoW her first and signed a DoF with me. I had enough space for a six-city Liberty start. I built enough spearmen, warriors and catapults to convince Alex to keep attacking Isabella and leave me alone. Everything was going pretty well until (1) Isabella built the Great Wall and (2) Alex conquered Madrid (her only city) and became the proud owner of the Great Wall.

This happened just as I got musketeers. So I decided "what the heck" and attacked Alex with musketeers and cannons. I went in with six musketeers, five cannons, two knights, and three pikemen. Lost at least three musketeers (and built a couple more along the way), two cannons, both knights, and one pikeman. But I captured four of Alex's five cities (including Madrid), and left him to whinge impotently.

On the other continent, Darius and Hiawatha are trying to figure out which one of them is going to be the runaway. (Carthage is already out of the picture and Denmark is fading fast.) Genghis has his own continent, from which he keeps launching attacks to capture city-states. I'm now busy raising a navy and riflemen that I will promote to foreign legions to go manipulate the balance of power on the second continent. I don't expect it to pretty.